Why do you not list Drs Greek's first three books on the website?
AFMA is frequently identified as an animal rights group. Why?
Do you conduct your own biomedical research?
Do you oppose the use of animals in all scientific endeavors?
Why don’t you talk more about the business aspect of using animals in research and testing? Would not the argument that alternatives are cheaper and more predictive be a good place to start the debate of using animals in research and testing?
This is a good question and we appreciate the chance to respond as it gives us the opportunity to cover a lot of ground.
First, the actual dollar amount spent by companies on using animals as predictive models for humans is unknown and is likely to remain that way. In addition to such data being proprietary, companies do not want society to know how much they spend on such things. So any attempt at comparison is dead before it even begins.
Second, but all is not lost. We can look at the paradigm of using animals per se and draw conclusions. For example, we cannot review every patent application claiming the development of a perpetual motion machine but we can study the laws of physics and conclude that a perpetual motion machine is not possible. Therefore, examining all the applications is not necessary, as we know in advance that the applications will have fatal flaws. We do not need to find the individual flaws in every application in order to refuse the patent. Similarly, a thorough study of evolutionary biology tells us that with respect to drug and disease research animal models will not be predictive for humans (see Animal Models in Light of Evolution).
Third, we can conclude from our study of evolution and the empirical evidence that any company using animals as predictive models will probably not do well, at least in so far as it relies on animal data when trying to determine what the disease or drug will do in humans. The cost to the company will be large and benefit nonexistent, or at least no better than one would expect from using random guessing to determine human response.
Fourth, this question allows us to point out once again that when people suggest that an alternative to using animals should be developed, they are implying that using animals is a viable means for accomplishing whatever the stated goal is; for example predicting toxicity. (Greek and Shanks cover this in FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science ). In fact, animals are not viable for predicting human response so the practice of using them as predictive models should be abandoned simply because it is ineffective. For more on this go to the section Three Rs and Alternatives in the essay How animal protection groups are delaying the end of vivisection.
In summary, we do not have, but neither do we need to have, a monetary cost analysis comparing animal models to other models such as in vitro and in silico when trying to determine whether animals should be used by businesses in predictive modeling.
AFMA has been criticized for promoting an agenda as opposed to merely stating their scientific opinions and letting the facts speak for themselves. Is AFMA’s scientific creditability diminished because it promotes change as opposed to merely stating facts?
Merely stating facts is often inadequate. Milner:
Darwin was well pleased with Huxley's aggressive campaign to win over public opinion in 1860, just after Huxley had bested Wilberforce. Darwin stressed the "enormous importance of showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinion. . . . I see daily more and more plainly that my unaided book would have done absolutely nothing.” (Milner, Richard. 2009. Darwin's Universe: Evolution from A to Z. University of California Press. P122.)
In fact, Darwin was not the first to suggest natural selection as a means for change. Two others, Patrick Matthew in 1831 and William Charles Wells in 1818 had written about it prior to Darwin (Milner p 295-6). But their publications received little attention in part because they had no Huxley to promote their idea.
Another example is the monk Gregor Mendel and his discoveries in genetics. Mendel published a paper in 1865 that was ignored for decades. Finally discovered after his death, it went on to become the basis for explaining evolution as well as informing science in many other areas.
AFMA is committed to better patient care through better research hence will continue to vigorously point out the implications of using animals as predictive models. Lives depend on it.
Where is the data to support your position that using animals as predictive and causal analogical models for human drug and disease response is a scientifically untenable?
There is an overwhelming amount of empirical and clinical evidence, not to mention a large number of scholarly and popular publications that have been written, regarding the use of animals as predictive models. Moreover, remarkable advances in the world of biomedicine are being made every day in the United States and around the world. Any attempt to cull this information into a single website and keep it up-to-date would most certainly fall short.
Rather than engaging in a futile attempt to provide exhaustive information to plead our case, we have provided a substantial number of links and resources for those who wish to explore the issue further.
This is not a cop-out. Once can prove the curvature of the earth in many ways by using math, our vision, Newtonian physics and so forth. For example, one can observe lunar eclipses or sail around the earth and deduce the curvature. But today the easiest and most convincing way is to simply look at a photo taken from outer space. The same is true in principle for proving animal models are not predictive for human drug and disease response. While somewhat more complicated than a picture, the website attempts to be true to that principle.
Many people who share AFMA’s position on animals as predictive models for drug and disease response have relied on the data provided in earlier versions of your website to support their beliefs. How can they now prove their point without the appropriate data?
Many people who do not have a strong background in science have in the past used scientific data available on previous versions of the AFMA website to support their beliefs that animals should not be used as predictive models for human drug and disease response. However, with the tremendous advances in science over the last decade, the arguments being made using that data were becoming obsolete. Moreover, the new information coming from research today is much more difficult for a non-scientist to assimilate than the old. This is the nature of science.
While we respect the right of anyone to make any argument they wish on any subject they wish, the potential for a non-scientist to misunderstand—and thus inadvertently misrepresent—the data is far too great. In the end, using old arguments and misusing current arguments, which is certain to fail when put forth before scientists, is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of abandoning a scientifically untenable position.
For those in need of experts on the subject of the scientific merits of the uses of animals in science, we suggest you contact us directly. We would be happy to interact with your questioners.
Why do you not list Drs Greek's first three books on the website?
Because we practice what we preach. The three books written by the Drs Greek are not listed on this website as resources because they are essentially out of date. The information in them is not wrong, but as more information has become available, the arguments made in these books are not as powerful as the arguments we make in Animal Models in Light of Science (due out in 2009), which is a scholarly publication geared for people with doctorates in science. For the non-scientist, we are in production with FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science: A handbook for the scientifically challenged, which is also due out in 2009. We recommend those books and the articles listed on the Resources and Links page.
AFMA is frequently identified as an animal rights group. Why?
Because AFMA opposes the use of animals as predictive and causal analogical models for human drug and disease response, our position intersects the position of animal protectionists in that they too wish to eliminate the use of animal models in drug and disease testing.
However, that is where all commonality ends. AFMA’s position is rooted in science and the harm that is done to humans when scientific arguments are ignored. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, hold their position on ethical grounds. They utilize the scientific argument as a way to win people over to their cause. And that is their right to do so.
There are additional differences. Because we are based purely in science, we do not oppose the use of animals to benefit humans when it is scientifically sound. We readily acknowledge that in many respects animals have proven to be of great benefit to medicine—just not as predictive models for human drug and disease response. Animal protectionists, however, unilaterally oppose the use of animals in science as part of their philosophy regarding humanity’s relationship with animals.
The mistaken belief that AFMA is an animal rights group is sometimes a natural one, since there is a thread of commonality and it is all too easy to make false assumptions. At the same time, AFMA is frequently and purposefully accused by those who advocate animal-based studies as being an animal rights group in an ad hominem attack designed to confuse those who are not familiar with AFMA and the scientific basis for our position.
Do you conduct your own biomedical research?
AFMA is an educational organization, and we are solely dedicated to improving policy and decision-making regarding the use of animals in biomedical research. We do publish in the scientific literature and some, including AFMA, would consider such publications to be the result of research. But we do not conduct research in the sense of controlling variables, using equipment commonly found in labs, or working with patients.
Do you oppose the use of animals in all scientific endeavors?
No. We only oppose the use of animals as predictive and causal analogical models for human drug and disease response because it is a scientifically untenable practice. As a science-based organization, we know that animals have been used successfully in a number of areas to benefit human health, and we have no objection to that.
